Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
So it was announced today that Adam Neumann — the cofounder and former CEO of WeWork — has been quietly buying apartment buildings across the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, he is involved in entities that have acquired more than 4,000 apartment suites valued at least $1 billion.
The buildings, which seem to be fairly typical and have at least a few hundred doors, are located in cities like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Atlanta, Nashville, as well as in many other US cities. It’s not clear what the exact plan is for this real estate but people who claim to know things are saying that it will involve “redefining the future of living”, or something along these lines.
Presumably this means catering to young professionals with cool design, fun amenities, and beer taps. Whatever ends up happening, it is interesting to see some of the cities that he/they are targeting. They are the cities that we’ve all been talking about for many years. You know, the ones that are growing quickly and have greater housing supply elasticities.
As promised, below is a list of some of my predictions for this coming year. I have tried to be both punchier and more precise in my prognostications; because, well, obvious predictions are boring and precision will allow me to better evaluate my thinking at the end of the year. So here goes.
2022 will be the year that COVID-19 becomes endemic and finally fizzles out to a point where it no longer factors into our decision making in the same way that it has for most people over the last two years or so. I think this will happen by as early as the summer.
As a result, I think the majority of people will be back in their offices by this September at the very latest, with many coming back much earlier. The whole hybrid/flexible work thing won’t completely disappear, but the majority of people who used to work in offices will be back.
Recreational/fringe residential real estate will soften in 2022 as a result of 1) its tremendous run-up during this pandemic and 2) the renewed pull of urban/office life. Conversely, urban apartment rents will continue to rise and eventually surpass their pre-COVID levels. The SF Bay Area could be one exception.
The explosion of travel that I thought was going to happen in 2021, will truly happen this year. The summer will mark its official return, with European travel volumes (to give just one example) returning to their pre-COVID levels.
We will see meaningful efforts to further breakdown the hegemony of single-family zoning throughout many North American cities. This has been building for a number of years and I think we will see some tipping point-like moments in 2022. Specifically, expanded permissions for multi-unit housing and greater densities.
I wish I could say that autonomous vehicles are destined to do something truly remarkable this year, but I think we are still a few years out (2024-2025?) before a large chunk of us are ride-hailing AVs. But on a related note, I do think that Uber will come into its own this year and finally become profitable (and not just with adjusted profits).
Public transit ridership will, unfortunately, remain depressed and below its pre-COVID levels for this entire year. The beneficiaries of this will continue to be cars (not good), bikes, and micro-mobility solutions like e-scooters.
2021 was a huge year for NFTs and other fun stuff like digital fashion. Given these trends, I believe there will be growing demand from people to better integrate their digital and physical lives through technologies like augmented reality. Snap has been at the forefront of this space for many years and 2022 will be an important year for its Spectacles (AR glasses). But Apple and others will also make major announcements.
Miami’s ascent as an important tech hub will get interrupted by questions surrounding the climate crisis and its own resilience. At the time of writing this post, the price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is about €80 per tonne. I think we will see it break €125 per tonne this year, and possibly go even higher.
Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Solana (in this order) will be the top three cryptocurrencies according to market cap by the end of the year. At the time of writing this post, their market caps are $446 billion, $895 billion, and $55 billion, respectively. I am also expecting some breakout web3 consumer applications that will push, maybe, 40% of Canadians and Americans into the crypto space.
Past performance, we are often told, is not necessarily indicative of future results. At the same time, history has a funny way of repeating itself. I recently stumbled upon this research paper by Marc Francke (University of Amsterdam) and Matthijs Korevaar (Erasmus School of Economics) looking at the impact of pandemics on housing markets. More specifically, it looks at the impacts of the bubonic plague on 17th-century Amsterdam and of cholera on 19th-century Paris. Here’s an excerpt that summarizes what they found:
Our analyses for both cities point to substantial impacts of pandemics on property prices. We find that sales prices respond negatively to outbreaks, in particular in heavily affected areas, and that responses are short-lived, with the effects on sale prices being particularly significant in the first six months of an epidemic. Evidence from aggregate house and rent price indices suggests a smaller negative impact on rent prices. Amsterdam and Paris were very resilient to these outbreaks, with population and house price growth quickly reverting to prior trends.
This paper was first published at the beginning of 2021. A lot has changed since then and, in some ways, their findings now seem obvious. There was still a great deal of uncertainty in the market 12 months ago. While it seems like eons ago, I remember our team having discussions around when would be the right time to launch sales for One Delisle. Of course, 2021 turned out to be a record-setting year for housing and that includes the core/urban housing that the media was quick to write off at the onset of COVID.
This is not to say that certain things haven’t changed or that there won’t be further changes — both positive and negative — that come out of this. To give one just example, we all continue to hear anecdotal evidence that a lot of tech talent would now prefer to be in cities like Miami over San Francisco. (I’m not tech talent, but this would be my strong preference.) Did the pandemic help fuel this? Probably. It opened a door for the people who no longer wanted to live in a city with such a supply-constrained housing market. (I’m sure there were other reasons, too.)
These things, of course, happen. Cities are powerfully resilient, but they still need to compete. The bigger point is that cities continue to be our greatest centers of opportunity. And here we have centuries of data and housing records to support the fact that opportunity is both a powerful motivator and a centralizing force for urbanization. This is true even in the face of things like pestilence.
Happy new year, everyone. I think there’s a lot to look forward to in 2022, including far less talk about pandemics and hopefully far more talk of places like Miami.
The Financial Times published an article this week talking about the record number of homes that Londoners bought outside of the boundaries of the city this past year. The total was about 112,780 homes worth some £54.9 billion — again, it was a record in terms of total value.
The argument is that this pandemic continues to fuel decentralization, flexible working arrangements, and greater demand for larger spaces. Housing preferences have permanently changed. And the suggested takeaway is that this dynamic might have “serious consequences for the city’s population and housing market.”
But of course, I’m going to question whether this is really the case. The ~£55 billion number is clearly a new high according to the article. The previous record was £36.6 billion back in 2007. But that doesn’t give you the full picture because homes cost a lot more today than they did back then.
If you look at the total number of homes purchased outside of the city by Londoners, the record still belongs to 2007 with approximately 113,640 homes. When I see this number it makes me pause.
Because here we are living through a global pandemic and the largest work from home experiment in modern history, and yet the total number of homes purchased outside of the city this past year is still comparable to that of the last housing cycle.
Did this moment in time really create an anomalous and irreversible shift in housing preferences?
On January 1st of this year, I wrote a post called, “My 2021 predictions.” It was part of a new practice that I have adopted where I try to forecast the year (I will be wrong) and then evaluate how I did at the end of it (the focus of today’s post). This year was, of course, a tricky year with lots of uncertainty. But here’s where my head was at in January and here’s what ultimately happened.
Life will feel a lot more normal by spring/summer.
This more or less happened. Cases, at least here in Ontario, were way down by the summer. Those who wanted to be fully vaccinated had the option to be. Cities reopened and summer felt pretty good after a long winter of lockdowns. As soon as it was possible to do so, we reopened our office and many/most people came back. I ended up being in the office this year more than I wasn’t. Of course, I had no idea that Omicron was going to be a thing back in January.
Working from home/the office.
I think the jury remains out on this one. It’s still too early to draw conclusions. I have been in the office full-time for most of this year, but I recognize that that hasn’t been the case for everyone. I know from the super scientific “Jimmy the Greek Reopening Index” that I developed that office utilization rates are not yet back. When I wrote about this topic back in October, the US average was thought to be just below 40%. Still, I remain bullish on office.
An explosion of global travel.
Well, Airbnb’s stock isn’t maybe as sky high as I suggested in my predictions post. But it is still up over 19% YTD:
Marriott is also up nearly 27% YTD:
The reality is that travel was/is rebounding. I managed to take two weeks off at the end of the summer, which is something I hadn’t done in at least several years. But Omicron has certainly impacted the recovery:
Urban/downtown real estate will strongly rebound.
I would argue that we saw this play out in the residential sector. Here in Toronto, Q3-2021 saw condo rents in the core increase 11.4% quarter-over-quarter. This was a fairly significant snapback. It was the largest increase in the region, outpacing both the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs. On the for-sale side, we saw evidence of the condo market returning as early as Q1. We were also able to successfully launch One Delisle and are now preparing to start construction.
Trends accelerating.
In some cases, what we saw was a reaction to short-term dislocation. Peloton’s stock is down about 73% YTD at the time of writing this. In other cases, what we saw was just a “pulling forward.” (Link to post by Fred Wilson.) The pandemic led to greater consumption of certain products and services, but now those companies could be headed for a period of slower growth. At the same time, there’s evidence that certain things, like buying more groceries online, may actually be sticking.
Return of restaurants.
What seems pretty clear is that people are quicker to return to bars & restaurants than they are to return to the office. As we know, getting together in person is fundamental to urban life. Here’s a chart from OpenTable:
However, this is not to say that many restaurants didn’t have a tough go during this uncertain time.
Public transit ridership will return to pre-pandemic levels by the fall.
I was dead wrong and way too optimistic about this one. Office utilization rates remain lower than expected and so people aren’t commuting in nearly the same way. Those who are, seem to be driving more. As of August, Canada’s urban transit networks were operating, on average, at just over 40% of where they were pre-pandemic (August 2019). This is obviously a serious problem for operating shortfalls.
Migration from high tax states to (warmer) low tax states.
This is an established trend in the US and so it was certainly not a bold prediction. There are many other factors at play here beyond simply the pandemic. However, as I mentioned in my original post, what is perhaps more interesting right now is the heightened tension between centralization (urbanity) and decentralization. I’ll see what data I can uncover in the coming weeks, but we likely need to get to the other side of this pandemic before drawing any firm conclusions.
In reviewing this year’s predictions it is clear that I was perhaps overly optimistic (which is far better than being overly pessimistic) and that missed a lot of important stuff. Some of it was unknowable, such as a new variant, and some of it I just missed, which is bound to happen. I could also be more precise and bolder in my predictions, and so I will endeavor to do that in my upcoming predictions for 2022. Stay tuned.
If you’re not already an email subscriber to this blog, consider making that happen over here. And for those of you who have been reading all year, thank you. I truly appreciate it.
In it are a few interesting figures about the housing market in the US. According to a recent survey that the company did, the average first-time buyer made 10 offers before successfully securing a home last year. The percentage of all-cash offers is also up to 25% from 15% a year ago. What is clear is that demand is currently outstripping supply. Based on these figures, housing supply in the US is at the lowest it has been since the early 1980s.
But of course, the real point of the year in review was to talk about all of the great things that Opendoor has been doing to digitize the real estate industry. Perhaps the most interesting is its focus on creating “all-in-one real estate transactions.” What this aims to do is consolidate the now separate processes of selling a home, buying a new home, and obtaining financing, into one digital workflow. Whether or not Opendoor is the one to do it, I believe that this is the future.
And what we have learned from other industries (that have successfully digitized) is that when you make something super easy, people end up doing a lot more of it.
We talk a lot on this blog about laneway housing and ADUs, including, of course, the one that Globizen built earlier this year. But beyond being exceedingly cool (see above), what has this policy change meant at the macro level? To what extent is it actually helping housing supply? Let’s consider Toronto.
As a reminder, “laneway suites” became permissible in the former/old City of Toronto in 2018. The policies where then expanded to the entire city of Toronto in the summer of 2019. So we’ve had just over 2 years of this housing type being fully allowed city-wide.
Though it’s worth keeping in mind that there are only so many laneways in Toronto (which is why “garden suites” are going to be important and may actually end up being more impactful):
Between the introduction of laneway suites and June 2021, the City of Toronto received 306 permit applications to construct, of which 238 were associated with a unique address (the same address can have multiple permit applications).
During this same time period, 183 permits were issued. 107 were still under review at the time this report was written. 15 were refused. And 1 was classified as “unknown”, which I guess means it got lost in the ether or under someone’s desk.
Some of you will probably argue that this isn’t enough new housing for a city of 3 million people with high home prices, high demand, and high immigration. And I would agree.
But it’s still early days, there will be an adoption curve, and the policies are still being tweaked to further remove some of the barriers associated with delivering this housing type. Of the 238 unique addresses that submitted a permit application, just over a quarter of them had an associated minor variance application, which means that they did not fully conform to the current laneway suite by-law.
The most common obstacles appear to be the 1.5m laneway setback, the soft landscaping requirements, and the required fire access. But I know that there are others too. I could have used another foot or two in height on mine.
But as I mentioned before, there are more areas in this city without laneways than with. And so garden suites are going to be an integral component of city-wide ADUs. This will certainly help the adoption curve.
I continue to believe that these are all steps in the right direction and that this is an exciting time for Toronto. We are in the midst of transforming our laneways. But we’re not done yet. We’re going to have to make many other tough decisions in order to further increase housing supply. I’m positive we’ll get there.
There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there’s evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.
Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let’s just get developers to build us free affordable housing. But again, there are nuances to consider.
Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.
Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.
Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.
Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.
For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.
All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.
The obvious story is that Zillow’s algorithms were not valuing homes correctly. But the story is more nuanced than this. In Q1 of this year, Zillow’s home flipping business was actually more profitable than it had initially expected. And that’s because its algorithms were consistently undervaluing homes. So when it did transact, it was doing so at favorable / low cost bases.
The problem was that the company was not transacting enough and there was a fear of losing ground to competitors like Opendoor. Apparently only about 10% of people who requested an offer from Zillow actually ended up accepting it. Margins were good, but volumes were too low.
So what Zillow did was tweak its algorithm to be more aggressive (see above chart from the WSJ). But this created the opposite problem: low/negative margins, higher volumes.
Once again, it shows you some of the challenges with bringing real estate online. The supply of homes is largely heterogenous and there are a lot of qualitative factors that play into what someone is willing to pay.
I was having a conversation this week with a few friends in the industry about the future of parking. We were specifically talking about Toronto, but I would imagine that much of this holds true for many other cities around the world.
Here in Toronto, it’s not uncommon to see new parking spaces in central locations selling for upwards of $200k. For those that are not in the industry and not seeing the work and immense costs that go into building parking, this often comes as a surprise.
But as I have said many times before on the blog, parking is often a significant loss leader for new developments. Even at relatively high prices, most developers aren’t covering their costs. So developers naturally aren’t racing out to build more of it. They’re trying to build just what is absolutely necessary for the market.
Given the strong incentives to build less parking, it’s no surprise that parking ratios continue to decline. But consider some of the other parking headwinds:
Push toward watertight undergrounds across the city (higher costs)
Tipping fees for disposing of contaminated soil (higher costs)
Increasing development charges / levies (higher costs)
Introduction of inclusionary zoning (higher costs)
Inflationary construction cost environment (again, higher costs)
There is a lag between changing cost structures and what the end consumer sees and feels. Junction House, for example, is fully tendered from a construction standpoint and so we are building with a kind of historic cost structure that would be impossible to replicate today. When the next project comes around, they’ll have higher costs and will have to price their homes accordingly.
As rising costs and new policies (like the ones I mention above) begin to work their way through the system, I think it’s fairly obvious that parking ratios will continue to be one of the first things that gets looked at and ultimately chopped down. This will make parking even more scarce in the city and surely far more expensive.
But as I have argued before, I am of the opinion that building around the car is not the way to build big and well-functioning global cities. Many of us recognize that we need to focus on alternative forms of transport — everything from public transit to new micro-mobility solutions. And given where costs are going, I don’t think we’ll have much choice.
